Osaic Wealth Inc. v. Ricci
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:25-cv-06906
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Osaic Wealth v. Ricci, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied Osaic’s temporary restraining order request for lack of immediate irreparable harm.
Osaic Wealth Inc., which sought to stop Michael Ricci’s arbitration claims, and Michael Ricci, whose arbitration was not enjoined by this order.
What happened
Osaic Wealth Inc. asked the court to temporarily stop Michael Ricci from pursuing claims against Osaic in an arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Osaic said it needed the order by August 20, 2025, because arbitrator selection was expected soon.
The court said Osaic had to show immediate, irreparable harm—harm that could not be adequately repaired later—to obtain this emergency order. The court found that Osaic had not shown the necessary urgency because it waited more than two months after Ricci began the arbitration before seeking relief. The court also expressed doubt that defending itself in the arbitration would qualify as irreparable harm.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Osaic’s request for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to Osaic filing a formal motion for a preliminary injunction. Because Osaic failed to show immediate irreparable harm, the court did not analyze the other required factors.
The detailed version
- Osaic Wealth Inc. v. Ricci · No. 3:25-cv-06906
- Martinez-Olguin
- Aug. 18, 2025
Background
Osaic Wealth Inc. filed an application for a temporary restraining order, or TRO, seeking to prevent Michael Ricci from pursuing claims against Osaic in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration. The arbitration also named GWN Securities Inc. and Christian McDonald Ramsey. Ricci initiated the arbitration on June 11, 2025. Osaic filed its request for emergency relief on August 15, 2025.
The court decided the application without oral argument and applied the requirements for emergency injunctive relief. A party seeking a TRO must show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of hardships favors the party seeking relief, and that the public interest supports the order. An application made without first giving the opposing party notice must also show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Osaic failed to show a likelihood of immediate irreparable harm. Osaic argued that it needed a TRO to avoid being compelled to defend itself in the arbitration and stated that arbitrator selection was expected to occur soon. The court doubted that defending itself in the arbitration constituted irreparable harm, but it found the application deficient in any event because Osaic had not demonstrated that the threatened injury was immediate.
The court emphasized that Osaic waited more than two months after Ricci initiated the arbitration before seeking emergency relief. It found that Osaic’s unexplained delay undermined its claim that it would suffer irreparable harm without a TRO. Because Osaic failed to meet this requirement, the court did not analyze the remaining TRO factors.
Disposition
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Osaic’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to filing a noticed motion for a preliminary injunction. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the FINRA arbitration.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.